Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karan Acharya (3rd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Following a relist for consensus 5 days ago, the main contribution has been a source assessment table. The arguments for keep cite the article meeting GNG, which the source table demonstrates. No other contributors have offered a rebuttal, and so this table adds weight to keep arguments over delete. Overall, a clear keep consensus. (non-admin closure) MaxnaCarter (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Karan Acharya
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:BLP1E case. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. - Hatchens (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and India. Hatchens (talk) 08:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly not WP:BLP1E, as discussed in the previous AfD, and WP:GNG is supported by the independent and reliable sources in the article. Beccaynr (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep I am leaning towards 1E. But might come back to it. Changed vote to Keep. Not a 1E because of coverage in high quality publication like Indian Express that's talking about events other than the Hanuman image. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:TOOSOON. Despite referencing in RS in some cases, the first three of those that I have checked fail. They are interviews with the artist, and are churnalism. Whether it is WP:BLP1E or not is open to discussion, and I think is a distraction. I tend to feel that this coverage is not for an event, but is coverage of the subject's art. That leads me to question whether it is the art that has notability or whether it is the artist. This is a fine point of balance. My thoughts are that, at this stage in the life of the art and the life of the artists the scales are tilted 51:49 in favour of the art, but that neither of these have shown sufficient notability. At present I see Acharya as failing WP:NARTIST in particular and WP:GNG regardless. I do see that they may acquire true notability in the future. Once they do we may have an article here. Until then, not. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 06:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Its the third time its being nominated for deletion, somehow someone lists it every time again. Where does this end? Amitized (talk) 04:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete There are not enough quality sources to pass GNG. The first time this article was nominated it was deleted, so attacking nominating it multiple times when it clearly does not meet inclusion criteria makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets general notability guidelines through cited references such as the Indian Express. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment A source assessment table of sources from the article can help demonstrate WP:GNG/WP:BASIC/WP:CREATIVE notability and how more than one event is covered by the sources in the article:
 * Other sources that could be used to expand the article include Mangaluru man’s half-done Hanuman is India’s new icon (Bangalore Mirror, 2016), which helps further demonstrate WP:SUSTAINED coverage. Beccaynr (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Beccaynr the source assessment table is something awesome I've learnt here. Thank you for sharing. Amitized (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * @Beccaynr the source assessment table is something awesome I've learnt here. Thank you for sharing. Amitized (talk) 03:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.